MovieChat Forums > Unthinkable (2010) Discussion > Question for the 'anti torture' people..

Question for the 'anti torture' people..

posted 14 years ago by icem2829
32 replies | jump to latest

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Obviously this is something that very few people would ever encounter, but hypothetically could.

Let's say you had captured a criminal..someone that your child or spouse or parent ect was holding capitave and for randsom. Let's say this person told you that your child was being raped and burtalized, and being held in a horrible enviorment. And you have no idea where they are, and you know that you do not find out soon, they will die. The only way that the criminal would ever let them live, is if you gave into a demand that he gave. And lets assume this demand was something you could never actually give into, because you dont have what the criminal is asking for.

Now you have this criminal in your house ( along with other people, but without police involvement), and they are the only person that holds the location to allow your child/wife/parent to go free. Are you telling me you wouldnt do ANYTHING you could to get them to saftey? I know most of you would, and I sure would. I could take them apart piece by piece, and burn every square inch of their body until they told me what I needed to know...and 99% of people eventually give into physical torture, it's a proven fact.

Now this movie was basically showing that times 10 million. 10 million Americans ( odds are you or people you know) would suffer horrible fates unless information was gathered. So if you answered yes to my question, why would you answer no to something MUCH more severe? The answer is obvious, because its easy to take the moral high road, until something actually involves you personally.

Just something to think about.

[–] BigMac25 13 years ago

It's always okay if it's your family or someone you know who would be harmed if the terrorist isn't tortured.

But other people? Eh. It's wrong then. We shouldn't torture people for info that would otherwise save them.

This is liberal moral relevancy at its finest.

Sleep peaceably at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on your behalf.

[–] jslavik 13 years ago

I will never understand the point of view of the anti torture people. How you can sympathize with people who would certainly take your life without hesitation is beyond me. Remember what they did to Daniel Pearl? That could have been ANY human being. He didn't do anything to those individuals.

With regards to the film, frankly, I don't think the torture went far enough. Look, I'm not into the torture of people just for the hell of it, but if it comes down to Yousef and his family or hundreds or thousands of innocent people, I'm not going to have any problem in deciding what to do. Personally, I would think that any rational person would see it this way. You've got to do what you can to find out how to prevent the attack. How can anyone sit there and say, no, let's allow thousands to die, because we can't torture Youself or his children? You've got to be kidding.

I agree with the OP. A lot of people do take a certain stance, yet it's funny how fast it changes once it becomes personal.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Terrence_McGaumont 13 years ago

Since we're debating personal feelings, let me ask YOU a question:

Let's say your daughter is suspected to have abducted a child.
She claims she's innocent.
The child's father is ready to torture her. So is the police. So is society.

You're still an avid defender of torture? Out of millions of Americans, how many would still think torture is perfectly acceptable if a family member was about to be waterboarded? How many professional interrogators? How many politicians?

The answer is simple: personal feelings shouldn't be part of this debate.

Just something to think about.

[–] Rocco3000 13 years ago

To the OP. You are wrong! It is a not a proven fact! And I'm going to say this loud and clear for all you 'pro-torture' people:

"There is simply NO scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of torture"

"The lack of scientific basis for the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation technique is summarized in a 2006 Intelligence Science Board report titled "EDUCING INFORMATION, Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future"

The reasons against torture is not so much that the evidence obtained is unreliable but more because torture CORRUPTS institutions that tolerate it. Some of the most evil regimes in history have employ torture. Torture says more about the person doing it, than the victim.

So no, in your impossible story (why in the world would anyone do this to me if I didn't have the power to grant his wishes:S), I would not torture the individual as it would not resolve anything, except allow me to take out my anger, hatred and frustration on someone, which is not the point and is wrong.

[–] voight84 11 years ago

^^
right!!its always the best solution to cuddle,feed and comply to terrorists and of course giving in to their demands....retarded fart
if it went after do-gooder pacifist sissies like you the worlded would be ruled by criminal scum....so keep your cribbed self righteous holier than thou speech to yourself a-hole

The only thing worse than a film critic.....is the average loser that tries to act like one!!!

[–] dhakwijerathna 11 years ago

Just because you use torture doesn't mean the intelligence you receive is reliable. There are many vicious people on the Earth is willing to let thousands die, including their families in order to attain their goals. In some cases torturing innocent family members may cause them to brake, however as with torturing anyone, its always wrong. This isn't about saving lives, its about what is right and wrong. Torture causes people to descend to the levels of criminal scum. If this is truly about saving lives, there are many other ways to extract information other than torture.

[–] CaptainTrips452 11 years ago

How? By asking nicely?

[–] han-skat 11 years ago

Weighed against millions of peoples lifes, then yes, torture is necessary. If someone threatens someone close to you, your heart rises and you will be willing to go to extreme measures to protect them. I have no problem seeing myself kill someone if they threaten my family. I would do so gladly. If my only choice was torture to save some of my own, you can bet your ass I will use it. I may have some severe problems with myself later, but I'm willing to pay that price.

[–] yusef-ghanima 10 years ago

admit that you'd do it any way just for the fun of it, i know your ilk.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

[–] jutuomin 9 years ago

Yeah..

It's been mentioned here earlier, but I'll mention it one more time. Torture is very unpredictable and with torture many people would confess much more than they would be willing without torture. Unfortunately this also includes things that are not true or things that those people have not done.
Torture is very unreliable method and that is the reason why it's not used by the police.

But also..
Not torturing people makes me a better person (that I want to be) so that would be my number one reason not to torture. Even if it would work I would rather choose to be a better person.

[–] venanttout 9 years ago

Let's say i really think you're a pedophile, and an accomplice of the person that got my child.

What kind of torture should i do to you/wife/chilren to get my child back ?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]